The New Brunswick Court of Appeal has rejected a man’s claim that a trial judge wrongly assessed self-defence after he punched another patron in a Saint John pub, causing serious head injuries.

In Cook v. R., 2026 NBCA 121, released October 29, 2026, the court dismissed Arthur Cook’s conviction appeal and his application for leave to appeal a 24-month custodial sentence. Justice Quigg wrote the reasons, with Justices LeBlanc and Dysart concurring.

The decision turned on whether the punch was reasonable in the circumstances, rather than simply whether Cook perceived a threat or acted for a defensive purpose.

Video evidence shaped the findings

The incident occurred in May 2022 after two men approached the table where Cook was sitting with a friend. A conversation followed, and Cook punched one of the men in the face. The man fell backward and struck his head, suffering a skull fracture and a brain bleed.

Surveillance footage captured the encounter without sound. Cook testified that he felt the men were about to assault him. He also maintained that the encounter was a consensual fight.

The trial judge relied heavily on the video when assessing the witnesses’ accounts. She rejected Cook’s description of the other man’s behaviour and found that Cook had minimized his own actions.

Cook was convicted of aggravated assault in October 2024 and sentenced in January 2025.

A perceived threat did not settle reasonableness

Under section 34 of the Criminal Code, self-defence includes a reasonable belief in a use or threat of force, a protective purpose, and a response that is reasonable in the circumstances.

The trial judge had a reasonable doubt about whether the Crown disproved the first two elements. Cook could have interpreted the man’s forward movement as a threat and could have punched to protect himself. Those elements were not at issue on appeal.

The disputed issue was the third element: the reasonableness of his response.

The appeal court found that the judge had considered the relevant circumstances. She had repeatedly watched the video and was aware that a second man was present. Her failure to mention that man in a particular part of her reasons was not a reviewable error.

The judge also considered Cook’s argument that he acted pre-emptively, but found no evidence that the man he punched was about to strike him. The footage showed no raised fists or weapons.

The court rejected the suggestion that Cook had been held to a standard of perfection. The judge had instead found that reasonable alternatives were available and that a forceful punch was disproportionate. The other man’s smaller build, apparent intoxication and lack of any prior relationship with Cook were relevant to that assessment.

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Khill, the appeal court also explained that an accused’s role in an incident is broader than whether that person provoked or escalated it. The inquiry can consider choices and reasonable alternatives throughout the encounter.

Consent and sentence challenges also failed

The court upheld the rejection of the consensual-fight defence. The trial judge had made a clear, evidence-supported finding that Cook intended to cause non-trivial bodily harm and had caused it. Under the governing common-law rule, any consent to the fight was therefore ineffective.

Cook also argued that he should have received a conditional sentence and challenged the treatment of aggravating factors.

The appeal court acknowledged that the sentencing judge had referred to the offence itself as an aggravating factor. Read in context, however, she was distinguishing its seriousness from a common assault. The misstatement had no effect on the sentence.

The court found the 24-month custodial term within the appropriate range and declined to grant leave to appeal it.